Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#31

Post by Stratoscope »

PaywallBuster wrote: post #12

Article: "its tremendous potential: gluten-free, high in omega-6 and -9 fatty acids, and contains 50% more protein than rice per grain" https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2019/11/omega-6-overl... "The abundance of omega-6 fatty acids in modern diets, combined with an insufficient amount of omega-3 fats, plays a major role in age-related disorders including cardiovascular disease, obesity, dementia, and metabolic…

Site is down for maintenance, so:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210115182707/https://www.lifee...

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#32

Post by orwin »

aex wrote: post #15

Nutritional facts are misrepresented by the Guardian in this article and in the primary source of the research: https://www.cerealmarino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/APON... 50% more protein “per grain” is a comparison I’ve heard here first. The intro of the paper claims “13% protein” but its comparison table states “10.1% protein”. In comparison, regular wheat has around 12.6% protein, while Einkorn wheat contains…

Sugar is bad, but the true unhealthy sugar is fructose or polysaccharide that degrade into fructose in your stomach, basically. Glucose is only bad in high quantity.

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#33

Post by orwin »

elihu wrote: post #28
Synaesthesia wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have to wonder if human kind will need to find some way to convert CO2 to pure carbon for storage as a climate control measure. We have! They're called plants. Any other method uses far too much energy to be able to do at the scale we need. Plants do capture carbon. As long as they don't burn subsequently, this isn't released again as CO2.

I'm not an expert in this area, but I was under the impression that any form of decomposition causes most of the carbon in the plant to re-enter the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Thus using plants to sequester carbon isn't just a matter of planting more trees; you actually have to pay attention to what happens when the tree dies.

Now, if we could somehow remove ligogen from wood, we would have pure carbon, ignifuge building material. This would do a lot for the planet.

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#34

Post by spicybright »

aaron695 wrote: post #24

If we move any agriculture to the ocean which is 70% of the earth and mostly unused or used in a fungible way then we would continue rehabilitation of much more of the earth's forests. Which the environmental movement will fight tooth and nail. They are about daily penitence not solutions. Obviously 'waste' in the ocean sinks and stores carbon forever in deep water, and if done properly it also could strengthen fish…

How do you move any agriculture to the ocean at the scale we consume it currently? Do you mean just switching crops like corn for crops that grow in the ocean like sea weed?

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#35

Post by denton-scratch »

fouc wrote: post #21
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. White rice must be the blandest food in human history.

Spend more time eating rice until you understand the taste of it.

Confucius, he say: "Chew your rice slowly."

Rice contains starch, and saliva contains amylase, an enzyme that breaks down starch into glucose. Slow chewing gradually confers a sweetness on a mouthful of rice; so Confucius was right.

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#36

Post by Synaesthesia »

elihu wrote: post #28
Synaesthesia wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have to wonder if human kind will need to find some way to convert CO2 to pure carbon for storage as a climate control measure. We have! They're called plants. Any other method uses far too much energy to be able to do at the scale we need. Plants do capture carbon. As long as they don't burn subsequently, this isn't released again as CO2.

I'm not an expert in this area, but I was under the impression that any form of decomposition causes most of the carbon in the plant to re-enter the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Thus using plants to sequester carbon isn't just a matter of planting more trees; you actually have to pay attention to what happens when the tree dies.

Some of it does, but a lot becomes part of the soil. (Source:https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-remo... ) Coal and Oil were once plants and organisms, examples of such carbon sequestration.

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#38

Post by alfiedotwtf »

How long would it take our usual white rice, to be slowly introduced to increased levels of salt, to slowly selectively mutate it until it can grow in open salt water seas? It doesn’t sound impossible, as I know this has been done to algae

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#39

Post by VBprogrammer »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #38

How long would it take our usual white rice, to be slowly introduced to increased levels of salt, to slowly selectively mutate it until it can grow in open salt water seas? It doesn’t sound impossible, as I know this has been done to algae

Halophytes is the key word you are looking for if you want to do more research into this. Generally sea water is a very high bar, however there are some interesting looking developments for places with high ground water salt levels, which is typically a big problem with respect to desertification.

Re: The rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats

#40

Post by robbiep »

aszantu wrote: post #29
estaseuropano wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Glucose and other sugars are one of the handful things that there’s a consensus it’s bad for our health. Is that really the case? There is a difference between something being inherently unhealthy vs excessive in our current diet. We like sugars because our bodies need readily accessible energy. The issue is that today it is to easy and cheap to produce and consume and we don't control ourselves.

The body makes its own sugar from protein needed. The hypothalamus is very sensitive to insulin. The when looking for it, you'll prolly find other examples

Running in gluconeogenesis permenantly isn’t biochemically ideal (at least for early growth)
Post reply on HN